• Kushan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I agree this is probably overall a good thing, but I worry if this bacteria thrives due to the amount of plastic around what that would mean for the amount of CO2 produced.

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s funny, for years I’ve been downvoted or thought to be joking when I point out that putting non-biodegradable plastic into landfills is carbon sequestration. I seriously think it’s a good idea, though. If people are concerned about carbon in the atmosphere then that’s a good way to get it out for the long term.

      • festus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        2 months ago

        That only works if the carbon in the plastic originally came from the atmosphere, but we use oil to make plastics. So increased demand for plastic = increased demand for oil, and that oil was already sequestered to begin with.

        • FaceDeer@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          Kind of, but frankly I think that’s a self-defeating hair to split.

          What ultimately matters in the end is simply “is more carbon going into the atmosphere, or less?” It doesn’t matter where the carbon is coming from, all that matters is that less carbon ends up in the atmosphere.

          If I have a plastic object and I send it for recycling or whatever, some of that carbon ends up in the atmosphere. Possibly all of it if it ends up being incinerated, since a lot of plastic “recycling” is not really recycling as you’d expect. If I put it in the landfill, on the other hand, the carbon is locked away effectively indefinitely.

          It doesn’t matter where that plastic object came from, I’m just faced with a choice of what to do with it.